Unions weep: After becoming RTW state, Michigan incomes rise

posted at 12:31 pm on July 27, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Hey, do you remember when Michigan shocked the nation and became a right to work state in 2012? That was supposed to usher in the end of the world, at least in the view of union leaders and their Democrat water carriers. As Thomas Lifson reminds us at The American Thinker, the predictions were nigh on to apocalyptic.

“There will be blood, there will be repercussions,” State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday, warned ahead of the votes.

And of course, there were predictions of disaster for the “little guy” as ruthless bosses would exploit the defenseless workers.

Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, said that right-to-work legislation would lower employee wages.

Those poor, poor Michigan workers. One can only imagine how they must be struggling two years later after the nasty, wingnut conservatives threw them to the corporate wolves. So… how’s that working out?

Michigan’s per-capita personal income increased from $38,291 in 2012 (before right-to-work became law) to $39,215 in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. That increase was the ninth highest in the country. (snip)

“The dire predictions of right-to-work detractors have not come true — Michigan has been a leader in income growth since passage,” said James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

A study released this week by Richard Vedder, a distinguished professor of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute as well as with the Mackinac Center, found that “incomes rise following the passage of RTW laws, even after adjusting for substantial population growth that those laws also induce. RTW states tend to be vibrant and growing; non-RTW states tend to be stagnant and aging.”

I agree with Lifson that this isn’t a straight forward, apples to apples comparison. In an open, capitalist system there are a wide variety of factors which go into determining wages. These can include outside factors beyond the control of both industry and the state government, particularly in an interconnected, global marketplace. The study estimates that average wages might be $3K per year higher today had the unions not had their thumb on the scale, but that figure may be off a bit, either higher or lower. But overall, the trend still tends to bend in one direction or the other, and in Michigan’s case the trend is toward more competition and higher wages.

But the workers (and the voters) should be able to take one central theme from this information and other states can take notice of it. The unions have been taking a piece of their wages for decades – sometimes against their will – and applying it to political campaign coffers and advertising campaigns rather than spending it to better the working conditions and lives of the workers. And in exchange for this pound of flesh they received… less pay.

Go forth and prosper.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“These polls mean nothing” — Ned, the plagiarist of HA

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Almost half the country is right-to-work. Need to get the whole country there.

theotherone on July 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off. Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

The average worker is too dumb to understand that being beholden to union bosses and paying them extortion money every month is freedom.

- Pyschotic progressive lib

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

No, you idiot. RTW is designed to free people from having to give their hard earned money to corrupt thugs who support the corrupt thugs in the democrat party.

Why is it, in virtually every case, when given the choice … you nuts like choice right? … to join a union most people opt not to?

Take your Marxist claptrap and drop it somewhere else.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Of course the unions and Progressives would predict “blood in the streets” and diminishing wages – they were hedging their bets on Obamunism’s natural economic course continuing on its death march to Fundamentally Changing America.

Reuben Hick on July 27, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

BULLSHIT! RTW has NOTHING to do with “profit”. Go back to school and take a class in economics. Idiot!

GarandFan on July 27, 2014 at 12:45 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off. Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Yet, this turkey-brain is for illegal slave labor. One can’t make this up in the best/worst of fiction.

Basically progressives are just waiting out the demographic shifts that will end the GOP and conservatisms influence. Not pressed.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Libfree, I thought you were pro choice

NoFanofLibs on July 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Libfree, I thought you were pro choice

NoFanofLibs on July 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Only on issues that benefit “progressives”.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Wait until the blacks and other minorities find out that the slave and his masters really, truly, hate them.

Same for the middle class and the taxpayers.

Amnesty hurts the legal blue/white color workers more than anything.

The masters from both sides, with obama, Boehner, Will, Zuckerberg, Soros, Wynn, Adelson, etc. truly hate you all.

libtard, the slave of HA s/b on the side of the legal poor and middle class, alas.

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Right on cue, the brown clown of cap and gown weighs in…

battalion on July 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Libfree, I thought you were pro choice

NoFanofLibs on July 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM

“Sure, it’s a choice to fruck the legal citizens of the USA, rube” –liblikeaslave

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Right on cue, the brown clown of cap and gown weighs in…

battalion on July 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Only coolr is second to his racism.

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I suppose after improving Michigan’s economy that the state’s voters will toss him out in November and replace him with another leftist.

cat_owner on July 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM

libfreeordie s/b for total freedom for all, in all regards.

This is a turkey who claims to be liberal.

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I meant the voters will replace Rick Synder with another leftist. They never learn.

cat_owner on July 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Who you gonna believe your lying eyes or the lying union bosses and their lying fascist democrat politicians?

jukin3 on July 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Over time, unions became a godsend for big corporations, since competing small businesses simply couldn’t afford to meet their demands. In the long run, it became more cost effective for those corporations to send those jobs elsewhere in the world, thereby providing NO compensation. That’s pretty much what libfree’s “progressive” fantasies require of U.S. businesses.

S. D. on July 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off. Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Like Warren’s pronouncement of the “progressive agenda” a week ago, this makes absolutely no sense. Planks of the progressive agenda have a proud place in American history, but when it deteriorates into just stringing together disjointed sound-bites and warmed-over platitudes in an effort to make an argument, it’s time to give up.

EdmundBurke247 on July 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

It’s an absolute treat when liberals don’t get their way and stamp their feet in disgust because anti liberal/socialist/progressive efforts work and the fascists lose that much more of their grip on people’s lives.

Screw off.

Diluculo on July 27, 2014 at 12:58 PM

I live in the Detroit suburbs. As much as I personally loathe our RINO governor Snyder, I have to give him credit for reversing the state’s pathway to doom that Gov. Moleface had us headed down.

bw222 on July 27, 2014 at 1:00 PM

It appears libcommunist ran off to the border to help get illegals across faster. Libcommunist is desperate to change the demographics … that is use brown people … to get rid of any conservative influence.

In the brave new libcommunist world … everyone is forced to belong to a union. Even stay at home moms … if they’re allowed to give birth that is.

darwin on July 27, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

BULLSHIT! RTW has NOTHING to do with “profit”. Go back to school and take a class in economics. Idiot!

GarandFan on July 27, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Indeed; he has admitted he is a financial illiterate, and mostly takes care of cooking the meals:

Rogerb, its true. But some folks don’t have a natural head or disposition to save. I’m more the adventurous, lets make a memory kind of person. My guy is a level headed, sensible type so he handles the finances and that’s fine by me. In return I made an amazing bacon wrapped meatloaf tonight, win-win!

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 11:20 PM

slickwillie2001 on July 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM

I suppose after improving Michigan’s economy that the state’s voters will toss him out in November and replace him with another leftist.

cat_owner on July 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM

It’s very possible. We re-elected Gov. Moleface, which was almost as dumb as re-electing Obama.

bw222 on July 27, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Hey, do you remember when Michigan shocked the nation and became a right to work state in 2012? That was supposed to usher in the end of the world, at least in the view of union leaders and their Democrat water carriers.

It’s Michigan, there is no difference between the union thugocracy and the Dem party. Look at any local Dem party and you’ll see all the usual suspects at the table….. SEIU, MEA, and UAW. They had a very nice racket going too. Which is why when Michigan came into the 21st century they responded as unions always do. They rallied, beat people up, and destroyed the statehouse grounds. Think of unions as old school OWS parasites.

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2014 at 1:08 PM

How come the leftists don’t stand with free-willed members?

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 1:08 PM

The UAW’s Jobs Bank program was one of the most insane burdens placed on an industry.

Flange on July 27, 2014 at 1:08 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

‘s okay, libby. Every family can expect a reduction in their health insurance costs of $2500 a year- the President promised. So those benefits don’t contribute so much to actual income anymore, right?

And because those inferior policies employers USED to provide will have to be replaced by excellent one-size-fits-everybody health insurance, its a total win for everybody.

Because now everyone will be covered by Obamacare (mmmm, mmmm, mmmm) it clearly won’t matter if a few employers drop employee benefits, right?

But here is what I don’t understand; RTW just means no one if forced to join a union, not that its illegal. So if unions are so fabulous for workers why don’t workers in RTW states form and join unions??

What is your explanation for this? Are people just stupid?

Dolce Far Niente on July 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM

I live in the Detroit suburbs. As much as I personally loathe our RINO governor Snyder, I have to give him credit for reversing the state’s pathway to doom that Gov. Moleface had us headed down.

bw222 on July 27, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I gotta admit that I thought “Right to Work” was step too far in MI. When I was living there, I met many very nice people who were conservatives in everything but their voting. They voted just how the union told them- like trained seals.

And, BTW, remember the official portrait of Granholm after she left office? It includes allusions to the (now failed) battery plant and the (failed) Chevy Volt as “accomplishments” during her time in office. I always thought it would have been more appropriate to have her portrait with a burned out Detroit as a backdrop.

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM

It’s interesting that the RTW states are the ones prospering now.

formwiz on July 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Right-to-Work and no income tax are two of the very few things that Washington state — SOMEHOW — manages to do correctly.

Jedditelol on July 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

What a friggin economic moron you are. Profitable companies are a good thing:

* A profitable company expands it operations, hiring more people.
* A profitable company can afford to increase compensation in order to retain valued and productive employees
* A profitable company pays more taxes, contributing more to the social safety net.

But by all means, please tell us of the economic benefits of unprofitable companies.

PackerBronco on July 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM

But by all means, please tell us of the economic benefits of unprofitable companies.

PackerBronco on July 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Ummm, they make liberal/progressive/Marxists feel good, showcasing their good intentions through epic failure.

oscarwilde on July 27, 2014 at 1:23 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

The math really is pretty simple. A job with reasonable benefits nets an employee far bigger a salary than when they become parasites because their employer can’t afford their services thanks to absurd “benefits”

This demanding so much that people get fired is ultimately will be what kills Obamacare as it was rolled out by the Dems. The only thing that might save the Dems from the political backlash is if the demise of the individual mandate kills Obamacare before the employer mandate is fully enforced.

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Libfree has one partial point, but loses another.

He’s correct that ‘total’ compensation needs to be examined, not just cash/wage compensation. That being said, it’s far from obvious that including those numbers would alter the overall picture (what percentage of the state’s workers were unionized prior to RTW, for example, and should comparisons separate workers in union and non-union camps, etc.). Doesn’t mean the numbers are BS but it does mean that the opponents of RTW were quite wrong in their predictions of doom.

He’s loses on the fact that (as others have mentioned) RTW enforces the right of ‘free association,’ that your employment doesn’t hinge on joining an organization you want nothing to do with.

Probably the most telling regarding these two points is that when Wisconsin teachers were no longer required to be members of the union they left the union in droves.

But again, as others have pointed out, progressives love to proclaim ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ but they really don’t mean it.

Ricard on July 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

But again, as others have pointed out, progressives love to proclaim ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ but they really don’t mean it.

Ricard on July 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Why I call him a “slave”.

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Right-to-Work and no income tax are two of the very few things that Washington state — SOMEHOW — manages to do correctly.

Jedditelol on July 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Don’t be too smug. Washington state also has the $15/hour minimum wage in Seattle, Boeing trying to get the hell out of dodge, and a commie on the Seattle City Council who thinks the workers should just take over Boeing. And, of course, your Senator was lauding the Taliban even as bodies were being pulled out of the rubble of the WTC.

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2014 at 1:28 PM

39,215 up from 38,291 a 924 dollar increase or 2.36% This could just be the amount of the union dues that are no longer taken from their paychecks.

meci on July 27, 2014 at 1:33 PM

He’s correct that ‘total’ compensation needs to be examined, not just cash/wage compensation. That being said, it’s far from obvious that including those numbers would alter the overall picture (what percentage of the state’s workers were unionized prior to RTW, for example, and should comparisons separate workers in union and non-union camps, etc.). Doesn’t mean the numbers are BS but it does mean that the opponents of RTW were quite wrong in their predictions of doom.

Ricard on July 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

HA’s village idiot wasn’t referring to total compensation. His litmus test was merely “union-won” benefits. A phrase that is inane in its own right since the term suggests that employers go into contract negotiations intending to pay slave wages for 15-hour workdays. Only the unions get the employers to shift uncomfortably on the bags of money they sit on and provide any benefits at all.

In short, libfree’s world includes the type of employment situation not seen since the 1890s. I’m guessing his grandparents were beret-wearing commies who were union folk back in the day when they acted as America’s fifth column during the 1920s and 1930s.

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Obamacare proponents argue that obamacare divorces the tie between extra benefits and a job. I am sure that libaslaveanddie is on board with this argument. No longer will healthcare and a job be tied together. FREEDOM! Then on this thread… He complains that jobs might not offer as good a benefits as before. Hey lib, shouldn’t you have some tiny bit of consistency?
You support a law that will cause millions of employees to lose health care benefits. Then you complain about a law that might cause a few workers to have less lavish health care benefits…

astonerii on July 27, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Will Obama start crying over this like the companies leaving the country for lower taxes? Winners in this situation are always the taxpayers or the evil corporations who are us.

COgirl on July 27, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Libfree has one partial point, but loses another.

He’s correct that ‘total’ compensation needs to be examined, not just cash/wage compensation. That being said, it’s far from obvious that including those numbers would alter the overall picture (what percentage of the state’s workers were unionized prior to RTW, for example, and should comparisons separate workers in union and non-union camps, etc.). Doesn’t mean the numbers are BS but it does mean that the opponents of RTW were quite wrong in their predictions of doom.

He’s loses on the fact that (as others have mentioned) RTW enforces the right of ‘free association,’ that your employment doesn’t hinge on joining an organization you want nothing to do with.

Probably the most telling regarding these two points is that when Wisconsin teachers were no longer required to be members of the union they left the union in droves.

But again, as others have pointed out, progressives love to proclaim ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ but they really don’t mean it.

Ricard on July 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Look at the experience in Wisconsin with the greedy teachers unions and their health insurance ‘benefits’. Turns out that they were grossly overpaying for those ‘benefits’ because the only health insurance company the teachers could deal with was a corrupt organization owned and controlled by union executives.

Post-Walker, their gross income went up, and the cost of their healthcare ‘benefits’ went down.

slickwillie2001 on July 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

liberals pervert everything they touch…unions equal Ponzi schemes for the immoral democrat party….

crosshugger on July 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Don’t be too smug. Washington state also has the $15/hour minimum wage in Seattle, Boeing trying to get the hell out of dodge, and a commie on the Seattle City Council who thinks the workers should just take over Boeing. And, of course, your Senator was lauding the Taliban even as bodies were being pulled out of the rubble of the WTC.

Happy Nomad on July 27, 2014 at 1:28 PM

“Smug”? Uh, ok. Reacquaint yourself with the definition of smug, and then re-read what I said.

Jedditelol on July 27, 2014 at 2:02 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

.
Irrelevant. No one is OWED … a certain, minimum “standard of living”.
.

Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

.
Maybe out of pure ‘competition-DURESS’, employees will start increasing their own individual PERFORMANCE . . . . . or do you see that as “too much” duress for employees to have to bear ?

listens2glenn on July 27, 2014 at 2:07 PM

The unions support Illegal Aliens being here and that alone suppresses wages……They are so stupid on this.

Realdemocrat1 on July 27, 2014 at 2:32 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off. Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

This is based on a poor understanding of labor economics and BEA’s methodology of measuring income.

First, labor economics are such that the employer offering the highest wage and benefit packages attract the most workers. It is possible, even likely, that employers are offering better packages than what could have been obtained via collective bargaining.

Second, a reduction in pre- or post-tax [ahem] “contributions” in the form of union dues serves as a net increase in take home pay.

Third, BEA’s methodology in its income reports aims to reduce the impacts of inflation and other factors unrelated to actual employment. For example, BEA attempts to factor out hours worked. Even if the increase is due to an increase in hours worked per week, it is likely that the happier, better compensated employees are willing to put in a few hours of overtime.

Conservative Mischief on July 27, 2014 at 2:42 PM

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Yes comrade. It was all about the profit margin in the days of my youth. I was working the cotton gins at the age of five and the greedy robber barons paid poorly and disregarded my health as I was easily replaced.
We struggled to get by, and my pappy with the “black lung” owed his life to the company store, so we addressed these concerns.
We swore never again shall the worker be dismissed as disposable, unworthy of fair and equitable treatment and undeserving of being provided a decent days wages as well.
We rose up and claimed what was rightfully ours ……..(of course, never understanding the economics of a free market enterprise), we went further.
We rallied for early retirement with gold plated pensions, cadillac health care plans providing dental, vision, and even plastic surgery. We made the process of firing a worker seemingly impossible regardless of their actions. We were always striking, demanding inadequate compensation at the expense of the taxpaying proletariat who’s salary for the same job without the lavish bennies dwarfed our own.
We colluded with our Democratic corrupt politicians to advance both our agendas. We laughed as we celebrated our advancements in controlling most federal and state free market systems to such a degree that it was us who now controlled the capitalist pigs and their over-taxed subordinate shills.
Yes comrade, they found themselves on the opposite end of the equation now (tee-hee).

We won’t stop there either. For you see, we have severely mismanaged our finances since we made grand promises we knew damn well we were unable to fulfill. We watched helplessly as those businesses left our closed shop states for fair and equitable treatment in other prosperous, free market states. Some just completely removed themselves from the US altogether and sought refuge overseas to escape our marxist progressive agenda. That trend continues to this day.

We will overcome these setbacks though. Here’s a little ditty to cheer you up.

Dasvidaniya comrade.

StubbornGreenBurros on July 27, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Of course the unions and Progressives would predict “blood in the streets” and diminishing wages – they were hedging their bets on Obamunism’s natural economic course continuing on its death march to Fundamentally Changing America.

Reuben Hick on July 27, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Obamunism. I’d given up trying to reconcile Obama’s particular statist blend of socialism, fascism and syndicalism…so Obamunism it shall be. Much obliged.

Barnestormer on July 27, 2014 at 2:45 PM

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Protip: When you’re explaining, you’re losing.

Buck Farky on July 27, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I agree with Lifson that this isn’t a straight forward, apples to apples comparison. In an open, capitalist system there are a wide variety of factors which go into determining wages.

But we won’t let that sour the red meat factor here, will we now?

The Democrats claim that the entire national economy is doing great because the smartest president evah (a Dem of course) is in the WH. The Republicans claim that whatever states that have one of their own as governor are doing great.

But increasingly, everywhere, people are losing their jobs, all kinds of businesses are shutting down or laying off, inflation is eating up what’s left of stagnant wages, more people every year are dependent on some or all of their livelihood from government checks, the housing market nationwide is slumping and so on…but in each individual political enclave, everything’s great!

I don’t care who you are-Dem, Republican, union big shot-please don’t pee down my back and tell me it’s raining.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM

OT – more rot at the VA

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Right-to-Work and no income tax are two of the very few things that Washington state — SOMEHOW — manages to do correctly.

Jedditelol on July 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Not for lack of trying on the income tax. It comes up over and over again and thankfully there’s still enough libertarian-minded folks still living there, although that number has decreased dramatically the last 15-20 years.

And you are wrong about right to work. WA is a compulsory union state.

Buck Farky on July 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

He assumes those benefits of which the largest are pension plans are actually paid out. Locals I am aware of have for years had to increase dues to pay for underfunded pension plans. Just to pay for current retires not to shore up their own plans.

CW20 on July 27, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Obamunism. I’d given up trying to reconcile Obama’s particular statist blend of socialism, fascism and syndicalism…so Obamunism it shall be. Much obliged.

Barnestormer on July 27, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Plain old “crook” makes the most sense…but “Obamunism” isn’t a bad term at all.

We’re a nation of gullible dumbasses. We really think that some guy with millions of dollars to his name, multiple homes and properties, huge investment interests, the need to pay back big campaign donors and so on really care about us.

We Republicans are the worst. We melt at the sight of wealth and business success…but we don’t want to hear how these clowns really got their money. If they spout the correct Conservative, pro-business platitudes, and basically say, “Vote for me and you can be as rich as I am…maybe even richer!” we’re down for them. We should know better than the sappy Libs and their rousseauian nonsense.

I think we’re getting what we deserve, both Democrats and Republicans. But, we’d rather blame each other while these criminals play us against each other and laugh all the way to their bank(s).

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

You’re so brainwashed. Sad, really. I did laugh, sorry.

CW on July 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM

If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

You cannot prove it but you’ll say it anyway…that’s our LFoD. Go SAD freak .

CW on July 27, 2014 at 3:24 PM

The unions have been taking a piece of their wages for decades – sometimes against their will – and applying it to political campaign coffers and advertising campaigns rather than spending it to better the working conditions and lives of the workers. And in exchange for this pound of flesh they received… less pay.

Call it a tax penalty…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 27, 2014 at 4:06 PM

If the data doesn’t include union-won benefits as income then it’s bunk. If wage increases don’t compensate for lost benefits it’s hard to argue workers are better off. Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.
libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I think I hurt myself

And my bunny slippers just ran for cover…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Right-to-Work and no income tax are two of the very few things that Washington state — SOMEHOW — manages to do correctly.

Jedditelol on July 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Well, we also have the little benefit of “shall issue” concealed carry permits. Not minutiae in my book.

platypus on July 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM

39,215 up from 38,291 a 924 dollar increase or 2.36% This could just be the amount of the union dues that are no longer taken from their paychecks.

meci on July 27, 2014 at 1:33 PM

No, I don’t think that many UAW have dropped out of the union yet.

8 weight on July 27, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Unions should be outlawed. Their officers in prison for RICO, extortion, arson and murder. Richard Trumka (AFLCIO prez) should have been strapped to a gurney years ago for a lethal injection for the murder of Eddie York during a mine strike.

Their bank accounts should be seized and distributed to the poor. EVERY Democrat who received union funds should be forced to pay it back to every union member whose dues where used to elect them.

The only good union is one that is disestablished.

georgej on July 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Unions are dinosaurs who’s usefulness was outlived long ago. They should have been mercy killed the moment they became nothing more than PAC’s.

Oxymoron on July 27, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Since RTW is principally designed to increase profit margin by decreasing overhead, there’s no way that it will not lead to a net loss in compensation. But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress. That’s pretty much what supply side fantasies require from it’s adherents.

At the risk of repetition: You’re an idiot.
Apparently there was no Basic Economics requirement in order to complete your Womens’ Studies degree. And, it shows.

A competitive market naturally leads to market-clearing levels of compensation and employment by specialty. Labor union-induced artificial cost strictures lead to lower employment and, more often than not, higher product costs. Just ask GM, where I believe the cost of employee healthcare (100% covered in years past) added more than $600 to the cost of EVERY new automobile.
Might I also point to the construction field, where artificially high union labor costs in places like Illinois served only to hasten automated solutions, lower employment, and reduce opportunities for workers: unless your Dad was a union steward and could get you in at Chicago’s McCormick Place as an electrician, making $95,000 a year to ride around in a golf cart and flip switches (true story).
Or, work as a union longshoreman in Seattle, where after 25 years, and no longer carrying ‘heavy stuff’, your pay reaches $200,000, with 100%, dime-one medical coverage (true story as well: my retired neighbor).

No, libfreeordie: You’re just not terribly bright. Those of us who DO have economics degrees, and/or who HAVE run actual businesses(yes to both), understand that there’s no free lunch. And ‘But but, the gummint’s gonna pay fer it’ doesn’t count as ‘free’. Not to the 5% of us paying nearly 40% of all Federal tax revenues.

orangemtl on July 27, 2014 at 6:26 PM

At the risk of repetition: You’re an idiot.

Not to worry, for libfree, I doubt that it can be said enough.

F X Muldoon on July 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM

The main purpose for unions is forced donations to Democrats and other radical causes ( but I repeat myself ).

elpolaco on July 27, 2014 at 7:51 PM

The only good union is one that is disestablished.

georgej on July 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Does this include unions formed for the employer, such as(but not limited to) staffing agencies? They act very similarly to labor unions, but seem to not be targeted by RTW legislation.

Some points of contention:
Difference between cost of individual and wages ~= Automatic deduction of dues
Going through the staffing agency for the job ~= accepting representation as condition of employment
Lack of incentive for the agency to stand with the people doing the work ~= Lack of wish for the union to stand with the people doing the work
Support of H1-b/L-1 fraud + illegals being the same.

sethstorm on July 27, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Wait until the blacks and other minorities find out that the slave and his masters really, truly, hate them.

Schadenfreude on July 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I hope I live to see the day that happens. Talk about a cataclysm — average black people realizing that they and their ancestors have been used by the Dems and the media for decades.

I will just enjoy and stand far out of the way.

PatriotGal2257 on July 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Unions are more obsolete than liberals.

ConstantineXI on July 27, 2014 at 9:04 PM

I hope I live to see the day that happens. Talk about a cataclysm — average black people realizing that they and their ancestors have been used by the Dems and the media for decades.

I will just enjoy and stand far out of the way.

PatriotGal2257 on July 27, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Obama’s amnesty drive for illegal alien hispanics should be convincing proof enough…

ConstantineXI on July 27, 2014 at 9:05 PM

If thaey’re not paying union dues, that’s a raise right there.

Ward Cleaver on July 27, 2014 at 10:02 PM

We Republicans are the worst. We melt at the sight of wealth and business success…but we don’t want to hear how these clowns really got their money. If they spout the correct Conservative, pro-business platitudes, and basically say, “Vote for me and you can be as rich as I am…maybe even richer!” we’re down for them. We should know better than the sappy Libs and their rousseauian nonsense.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Sounds like you believe in another Frenchman’s nonsense:

“Behind every great fortune there is a great crime”- Balzac

thebrokenrattle on July 28, 2014 at 12:23 AM

Sounds like you believe in another Frenchman’s nonsense:

“Behind every great fortune there is a great crime”- Balzac

thebrokenrattle on July 28, 2014 at 12:23 AM

Balzac had a good point. But that doesn’t mean that all fortunes are ill-gotten. It would behoove us on the right to at least admit that many are.

For instance…how did the Clintoons and the Obamas amass their fortunes? What did they invent? What companies were founded by them?

Now, I’m not going to sit here and claim that only Dems are crooks, but those are easy examples. There aren’t any poor people in Congress. But we wouldn’t want them there, because we want successful people managing our national affairs. And look what we get. They’re successful all right-by using their positions to make deals and rip us off. But, it’s OK-it’s better to be ripped off by a guy driving a BMW than a flim-flam man on a street corner with little to no net worth.

I don’t buy into this idea that “our” crooks are always upstanding citizens who deserve their wealth, while “their” crooks are disgusting reprobates.

They’re ALL stealing from us. But, we’d rather argue about the other guys. OK. Fine. See how that’s working for us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 28, 2014 at 3:27 AM

You mean that if you get rid of the middleman, get rid of the burden the middleman puts on employers and employees, that the workers get more take-home pay to decide what they want to do with so that there is no one there demanding that it be spent in the ways the middleman want?

Why, who could have seen THAT ONE coming, I ask you?

It is like employers are glad to have workers with lower overhead and workers are glad to have more pay so that they can live better lives as they see it.

Amazing how that works out, isn’t it? A win for the employer, a win for the employee and the middleman gets the shaft which he as giving to the two sides to begin with. What a catchy concept!

ajacksonian on July 28, 2014 at 7:01 AM

Right-to-Work? Yes. But now lets stop the flow of cheap, illegal labor from the south, utilize E-Verify in the work place and convince corporate America and the US Chamber to stop offshoring our best jobs. In return we lower corporate tax rate to zero or almost zero. We do that and Republicans start winning landslide again. Simple formula for victory/success.

Darvin Dowdy on July 28, 2014 at 7:59 AM

Basically progressives are just waiting out the demographic shifts that will end the GOP and conservatisms influence. Not pressed.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 9:49 AM

And the model society to which Democrats and RINOs aspire is much like feudal societies of the middle ages.

A modern version of the model can be seen today in any number of third world countries including those whose citizens are now streaming across our Southern border.

Those immigrants, contrary to logic, are more accepting of their place in society than are native US citizens and don’t have to be reeducated. It is not a coincidence that Democrats and RINOs champion immigration from these types of societies.

Nomas on July 28, 2014 at 8:11 AM

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

BWAHAHAHAHA… ok, lets do an apples to apples comparison for you…

I have two daughters who worked at two different grocery stores in the same town in which we live. One worked at Kroger (union) and the other worked at Giant Eagle (non-union).

At Kroger, my daughter had $50/month taken out in union dues.

At Giant Eagle, my other daughter paid no extra money to unions, had an employee allowance of $100/month to “make things right” with customers, and the store was cleaner and staff friendlier.

After taking into account benefits and union dues, my daughter working at Giant Eagle made more than my other daughter, had a better working environment, and was empowered to actually make things right when customers had problems.

That’s a true apples-to-apples comparison.

dominigan on July 28, 2014 at 9:59 AM

But maybe, out of pure benevolence, employers will shell out as much as they were under duress.

libfreeordie on July 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Please point out in what situations (besides out-and-out robbery) anyone ever shells out more under duress than when allowed their freedom? Maybe when there’s no benefit to it? LFoD, you’re an economic imbecile. Though it is nice to see you’re not slacking in your idiocy just because it’s the weekend.

GWB on July 28, 2014 at 10:01 AM

What a catchy concept!

ajacksonian on July 28, 2014 at 7:01 AM

I know! It’s got a great melody and a beat you can boogie to! The freedom song is great!

GWB on July 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM